On 11/22/22 10:28, Julian Kippels wrote:
Hi Thierry,
that's a nasty catch…
On the one hand I think this is a nice feature to improve security,
but on the other hand PBKDF2_SHA256 is the one algorithm that
freeradius cannot cope with.
I suppose there is no way to revert all changed hashes after I set
"nsslapd-enable-upgrade-hash" to "off"? Other than to reinitialize all
affected suffixes from the export of the old servers?
Indeed this is a bad side effect of the default value :(
If you need to urgently fix those new {PBKDF2_SHA256}, then reinit is
the way to go. Else you could change the default password storage to
SSHA and keep nsslapd-enable-upgrade-hash=on. So that it will revert, on
bind, to the SSHA hash.
thierry
Julian
Am 22.11.22 um 09:56 schrieb Thierry Bordaz:
Hi Julian,
This is likely the impact of
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/2480 that was introduced
in 1.4.x.
On 1.4.4 default hash is PBKDF2, this ticket upgrade hash of user
entries during the user bind (enabled with nsslapd-enable-upgrade-hash).
best regards
thierry
On 11/22/22 09:25, Julian Kippels wrote:
Hi,
We have a radius server that reads the userPassword-attribute from
ldap to authenticate users. There is a strange phenomenon where
sometimes the answer from the ldap-server gives the wrong password
hash algorithm. Our global password policy storage scheme is set to
SSHA. When I perform a ldapsearch as directory manager I see that
the password hash for a given user is
{SSHA}inserthashedpasswordhere. But when I run tcpdump to see what
our radius is being served I see {PBKDF2_SHA256}someotherhash around
50% of the time. Sometime another request from radius a few seconds
after the first one gives the correct {SSHA} response.
This happened right after we updated from 389ds 1.2.2 to 1.4.4.
I am a bit stumped.
Thanks in advance,
Julian
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
